Kaminski v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
This is a negligence case. The rule of conjectural cause is pressed upon us by a defendant held actionably negligent in the court below. We are reminded of decisions alleging that this Court does not recognize the doctrine res ipsa loquitur. It is said that the evidence before us proves an accident only, and that there is a want of proof or inference from proof justifying the verdict and judgment under review. The question is recurrently vexing, yet it need not be, at least in so marked a degree as modern experience discloses.
There are worthy landmarks. All that is needed is devotional…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Detroit & Milwaukee Railroad v. Van SteinburgMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
- Juchert v. California Water Service Co.California Supreme Court · 1940
- Schoepper v. Hancock Chemical Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Ginsberg v. Burroughs Adding Machine Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1918
- Burghardt v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by159 opinions
- Skinner v. Square D Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1994
- Mitcham v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1959
- Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2013
- People v. JacksonMichigan Supreme Court · 1973
- Kathleen and Michael Hasler, (82-1126), (81-1584) v. United States of America, (81-1584), (82-1126)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
154 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.